Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
8 thoughts on Trump’s Los Angeles crackdown
On Saturday, US President Donald Trump activated 2,000 members of the California National Guard to quell protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s deportation efforts in Los Angeles, after small but highly visible demonstrations had popped up across the city in the days prior – with some instances of violence, opportunistic looting, and property damage. California Governor Gavin Newsom disputed that federal intervention was necessary and condemned Trump’s deployment decision as illegal and inflammatory, blaming it for stoking the protests.
Though the protests had largely petered out by then, on Tuesday the president dispatched an additional 2,000-plus National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to the area. Downtown LA had a quiet night on the back of a curfew, but anti-ICE (and, more broadly, anti-Trump) demonstrations have started to spread to other major cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Austin, Dallas, and Atlanta, with more planned in Las Vegas, Minneapolis, San Antonio, and Seattle. Texas Governor Greg Abbot has already called in the National Guard ahead of any potential unrest in his state.
Here are my eight key takeaways:
- Trump’s decision to send federal troops into Los Angeles was extreme. It marked the first time in 60 years that the National Guard had been deployed to a US state without the consent of its governor. The last such instance was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson federalized the Alabama Guard in defiance of Governor George Wallace, one of the nation’s leading segregationists, to protect civil rights demonstrators led by Martin Luther King Jr. from violence. Needless to say, federal supremacy over states’ rights is being asserted in a very different context, by a very different president, and in service of a very different goal today.
- It’s legal – for now. Trump’s deployment pushes the envelope politically, but as long as the troops limit their role to protecting federal personnel and facilities while refraining from taking law-enforcement actions (as they reportedly have thus far), it will stay within the bounds of presidential authority. That’s a key legal distinction, as the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act bars active-duty forces from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless the president invokes the 1807 Insurrection Act. That’s a step Trump hasn’t taken (yet at least), suggesting that he still sees as high a bar for it as he did during the George Floyd protests in 2020.
- The door is open to a more radical use of emergency powers. The counterpoint is that Trump referred to the LA protesters as a “violent insurrectionist mob” (he does know a little something about those) and on Tuesday refused to take the invocation of the Insurrection Act off the table. He also warned that any protesters at this weekend’s military parade in Washington, DC – peaceful or not – “will be met with very big force,” and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth hinted at a desire to use military forces on domestic soil more extensively going forward. This pattern suggests that Trump’s threshold for activating emergency powers or using troops against Americans is lower than last time around, when he was repeatedly talked out of extreme steps by institutionalist advisors. I wouldn’t be shocked if the administration invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (aka IEEPA, the same law it used to levy reciprocal tariffs on Liberation Day) to freeze the assets of individual American citizens and organizations it accused of aiding and abetting “foreign invaders” (aka undocumented aliens). Or if it used the Communications Act to pressure internet platforms into throttling protest-related content. These scenarios may sound far-fetched, but so did the unilateral deployment of the National Guard and Marine Corps to Los Angeles less than 200 days into the first year of the Trump presidency. In his second term, Trump has proven willing to push the legal and political limits of executive power, against precedent and despite long odds of success.
- Trump’s LA deployment was designed to score political points, not restore peace. The City of Los Angeles was unaffected by the protests, which were confined to a handful of downtown city blocks. The Los Angeles Police Department had things under control (at least until Trump escalated the situation), and local officials saw no reason to request federal help. In fact, they warned that adding federal troops to the mix would risk heightening tensions and endanger public safety. But Trump wasn’t trying to solve a security problem – he was playing politics.
- Trump is eager to pick public fights over immigration. This is the one issue area where the president has had consistently positive approval ratings, save for a brief dip underwater caused by the administration’s mishandling of the Abrego Garcia case. For Trump, the political upside of doubling down on the migrant crackdown is twofold. First, it shifts attention toward his biggest strength and away from headlines that are more problematic for the administration, such as his failure to secure trade deals, his inability to end the Russia-Ukraine war, and his messy breakup with Elon Musk. Second, it forces Democrats into defending politically unsympathetic targets and positions, much like they did with Abrego Garcia (before the White House overplayed its hand) and Harvard University.
- The optics of the LA protests play straight into Trump’s hands. Images of burning Waymos and protestors flying Mexican flags lend credence to the White House’s false claim that undocumented immigrants are dangerous foreign invaders and their defenders are radical anti-American traitors, allowing the president to discredit opponents of mass deportations as threats to public order and safety. That only a small number of troublemakers were illegal aliens doesn’t matter; Trump is betting (correctly, in my view) those visuals will drive public opinion away from the demonstrators and toward more aggressive deportation policies.
- More deportations are coming. Trump has made measurable progress in curbing illegal border crossings, but so far, deportations have fallen far short of his campaign pledge (and even of deportations during Joe Biden’s last year in office). That’s not surprising; large-scale interior removals are much more politically, economically, and logistically fraught than border enforcement. But according to the Wall Street Journal, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller recently ordered ICE to step up its game, demanding that they stop targeting migrants with criminal records, asylum requests, and court petitions and instead “just go out there and arrest illegal aliens” at their jobs and schools. In other words, snag anyone who looks illegal, no probable cause (let alone warrant) needed. That approach was reportedly what sparked the LA protests last week. The backlash was instrumental to Miller’s goals: by signaling that Trump is making good on his deportation promise, standoffs with law enforcement can make deportations more popular and give Trump the political capital to ramp up more visible and disruptive workplace and neighborhood raids, particularly in Democratic-run cities. These operations will trigger more protests, which will in turn be met with more repression and stepped-up enforcement, and so on.
- On immigration, don’t bet on TACO. Trump faces fewer internal constraints in implementing his policy agenda on immigration than in any other area. Unless and until it starts dragging on his approval ratings, he is likely to double down: more aggressive raids, more confrontations with Democratic governors and mayors, more troop deployments to quell public protests. Mass deportations will disrupt local life in places like Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Chicago. Backlash to aggressive enforcement tactics, family separations, and mistaken detentions will be the primary source of domestic unrest in the coming months, but Trump won’t back down. This is a fight the White House is happy to fight.
Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles was less about taking control of the streets and more about taking control of the narrative. The strategy is confrontational by design, with immigrants and Democrats as foils and civil unrest as a feature, not a bug. This playbook may work politically. But in the long term, the result will be more conflict: between cities and Washington, between red and blue, between civilians and the military, and between competing visions of American identity. The most politically divided and dysfunctional industrialized nation will only become more so.
Abomination
Trump tells Elon to say it to his face. #PUPPETREGIME
Watch more PUPPET REGIME here!
Assassination attempt shakes Colombia's political landscape
On Ian Bremmer’s World In 60 Seconds: Ian breaks down the assassination attempt on Colombia's presidential candidate, the US-China trade talks, and Canada plans to hit NATO's 2% defense target seven years early.
Ian's takeaways:
An assassination attempt on a Colombian presidential candidate highlights that “security continues to be a really serious problem,” as opposition momentum grows amid President Petro’s struggles.
On US-China trade, Ian says, “There is real progress happening,” as factory shutdown threats push both sides toward short-term stability, even if long-term trust remains elusive.
And Canada’s plan to hit NATO’s defense target early? “It’s about Trump,” Ian notes, as Ottawa moves to ease tensions with Washington ahead of 2025.
Police in and around a high school in Graz, Austria, after a gunman killed nine people at the school, on June 10, 2025.
What We’re Watching: School shooting in Austria, Duterte impeachment update, Crapo shoots for the moon
Shooter kills nine at Austrian school
A gunman killed at least nine people at a school in Graz, Austria, on Tuesday, in what appears to be the worst school shooting in the country’s post-war history. The 21-year-old suspect, who was an ex-student of the school, reportedly took his own life. Austria has relatively liberal gun laws, compared to some other European countries, so we’ll be watching to see if this tragedy prompts any debate about tighter restrictions.
Could Duterte nab an impeachment reprieve?
The Philippines Senate on Tuesday sent impeachment articles against Vice President Sara Duterte back to the House for constitutional clarifications. It’s a reprieve for Duterte, who faces impeachment on allegations of high crimes, including a plot to kill her political (and dynastic) rival, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The stakes are high: if impeached, Duterte could be blocked from running for president in 2028. The political blowback could be severe, thoug: The vice president’s party outperformed expectations in last month’s midterm elections.
Trump’s Big Bill is now a Crapo-shoot
All eyes in Washington are today on Sen. Mike Crapo, Republican from Idaho who, as chairman of the Finance Committee, will be marking up President Donald Trump’s “Big, Beautiful” tax-and-spending bill. Crapo has his work cut out: A cadre of budget hawk GOP senators have called for cuts to the spending outlined in the House-passed version of the bill, while others are worried that any significant savings will come at the expense of Medicaid or other popular programs. Rock, meet hard place: Over to you, Mike.
Trump deploys National Guard to LA amid immigration protests
The deployment, which has sparked protests across the city, marks the first such federal action without a governor’s approval since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators from segregationist Governor George Wallace.
“This is obviously very different kind of politics,” said Ian, “but nonetheless reflecting of where the country… is increasingly oriented—not in becoming more progressive… but instead in securing the border.”
Images of protests featuring Mexican flags, Ian notes, feed a narrative the president is eager to promote.
“If Trump continues to respond in a public and aggressive way, there’s certainly a risk that tensions could escalate,” Ian warned, “especially as deportation operations ramp up in the coming months.”
- Where does Trump’s immigration crackdown stand, nearly 100 days in? ›
- Trump-appointed judge strikes down use of wartime powers to fast-track deportations ›
- What does Trump’s mass deportation mean for Canada — and immigration policy? ›
- Trump’s immigration plan faces hurdles ›
- What We're Watching: Trump calls out National Guard, US-China trade talks, Russia-Ukraine violence escalates ›
Protesters are blanketed in smoke along Alondra Boulevard during a standoff with law enforcement following multiple detentions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in the Los Angeles County city of Compton, California, U.S., June 7, 2025.
What We're Watching: Trump calls out National Guard, US-China trade talks, Russia-Ukraine violence escalates
Trump deploys National Guard to LA
On Saturday, US President Donald Trumpdeployed 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell protests against ICE immigration raids. Several hundred demonstrators, some carrying Mexican flags, clashed with police Friday and Saturday in the predominantly Latino neighborhood of Paramount, at times dispersed withbatons and tear gas.
How can Trump bring in the National Guard? While VP JD Vancedenounced the protestors as "Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags”, the White House did not invoke the Insurrection Act.Instead, Trump used a similar statute to “federalize”, i.e. take control, of state national guard troops, who are expected to arrive in LA by Monday. California Governor Gavin Newsom has condemned the action as “purposefully inflammatory.”
US and China talk trade in London
US‑Chinatrade talks opened in London today, following President Donald Trump’sphone call last Thursday with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The USwill be represented by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, while China is sending Vice Premier He Lifeng.
The goal? Salvaging a 90‑day tariff truce struck in May, whichlowered levies to 30% and 10% on US and Chinese exports, respectively. The sticking points? US export controls on semiconductors and AI chips, China’s rare‑earth export restrictions, and Washington’srecent revocation of Chinese student visas. The asks? Washington wants Beijing to open up rare-earth supply chains, while Chinaseeks relief from tech sanctions.
Russia-Ukraine war escalates – again
Peace seems further away than ever as the three-year-old war between Russia and Ukraine heats up again. On Sunday the Kremlin announced that Russian forces hadreached the Ukrainian region of Dnipropetrovsk. The central area is an important mining and industrial hub, and has not yet been a conflict zone; disruption to its supply chains couldseriously impact Ukraine’s economy and military as a whole.
Trading blows. The advance follows Russia’slargest aerial bombardment of the war last Friday, killing at least six people and injuring dozens more,in retaliation to Kyiv’s assault earlier in the week on a fleet of strategic Russian warplanes. Over the weekend, Kyiv then attempted to strike Moscow with ten drones. The weapons were intercepted by Russian forces but caused a brief fire at a nearby chemical plant, raising the spectre of further ripostes.
Elon vs. Trump: Billionaire fallout goes public
Ian Bremmer breaks down the clash in his latest Quick Take, calling it “super dysfunctional … but what isn’t around US politics?”
The fallout stems in part from a sweeping tax-and-spending bill Musk opposes, but deeper tensions are personal. Trump abruptly cut ties with Musk, removing key allies like NASA’s administrator, despite Musk's massive political donations and behind-the-scenes influence.
Musk, feeling betrayed, fired back, publicly suggesting Trump should be impeached. Ian warns the feud reflects deeper dysfunction in American politics, where influence is bought, loyalty is volatile, and institutions bend to personal power. Still, don’t rule out a truce.
As Ian notes, “They can clearly patch it up, and they should … because it is in both of their interests.”
Elon Musk's political donations 2020-2024
The Graphic Truth: Elon Musk's political donations
During his public spat with Trump on social media, Tesla CEO Elon Musk claimed credit for the Republicans’ electoral victories last year, writing, “without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.”
While Musk has indicated that he will pare down his political spending, he certainly possesses the financial power to tip the scales in campaign financing – he was the GOP’s largest donor last year. Here’s a look at where Musk, who publicly converted from Democrat to Republican ahead of the 2024 election, has put his money in the last two electoral cycles.